Reader Comments

"Wow" is a whole day earlier than expected. Wow.

"...Windows Vista and 2007 Microsoft Office system the most tested products in Microsoft history." Put a colon between "system" and "the", and you have a great promo line for the product's packaging. *yawn*

Lotsa: hahaha. It has to be in one of those many-pointed callout stars, though. I think the slogan is poor. "Wow starts Now." I think it would have been much more fun for Microsoft to take a bite out of Apple. Something like, "Introducing Leopard" or "Cupertino start your whining" or "Windows Vista: Turtleneck sold separately" I mean, I understand that the average person won't get any of the jokes, but then again, the average person doesn't care about Vista anyway. They just should have made it a little fun. As it is, the slogan reeks of "our marketing team of 50-somethings came up with this at 3:00pm around a conference table."

Here they come out of the woodwork. Do you just hang around Windows sites so you can tell everybody how much you hate Microsoft. Why don't you just get a life. Yes a lot of people are interested in Vista coming out. Perhaps you can see a doctor about your mental disorder

Wow started in 2001 when OSX came out and 5% of the world was experiencing it. Over 5 years later, the other 95% get to experience a diluted, insecure, sloppily-copied version of it called Windows Vista. So, yay, world. Be sure to subscribe to OneCare. Vista's backwards-compatible with viruses from 2004.

"Yes a lot of people are interested in Vista coming out. Perhaps you can see a doctor about your mental disorder" I tried to see my doctor, but the line was too long--seems the office was populated with people interested in Vista coming out. They took those cases first, because clearly they needed the most help.

"I tried to see my doctor, but the line was too long--seems the office was populated with people interested in Vista coming out." You mean Jobs and co? They do need help man. They're obsessed with Microsoft and Vista.

Microsoft copies Apple so much, you'd expect them to copy OSX's top-notch UNIX security model. Hmm.. Perhaps that's why Microsoft is working with Novell's SUSE Linux. Perhaps the next, post-Vista version of Windows will be based around the Linux security model.

"Perhaps the next, post-Vista version of Windows will be based around the Linux security model." You mean where people would have to compile their own viruses? Here we go: The same old arguments again and again and again. We get it, ok? Vista bad. OS X good. Hopefully Santa will will leave all you hardcore mac users a life under the tree on Monday.

bdk: obviously Microsoft won't stoop to Apple's level and say something negative about them. and yet, their marketshare has never stooped as low as Apple's either. "in 2001, OSX came out and 5% of the world was experiencing it." vandil: and yet the same percentage of people are still using it, but they've had to pony up $556US to pay for updates to get to the current version. "OSX's top-notch UNIX security model" you mean Apple's "mashup" of FreeBSD and Mach? only an Apple user could create this "Frankenkernel". i'm sure the word "mashup" was first published by an iLife user in the Apple User Dictionary with a flowchart diagram of XNU. it's no wonder nobody wants to code for this POS.

I have spent the last weekend trying to acquaint myself with Windows Vista. I very much wanted to like it. I was a super-involved Windows 95 beta tester and always carried the Microsoft message with me - even participating in one of Bill Gates' keynote speeches. But I come away disillusioned. I am a seasoned professional - a sophisticated software developer and I love tinkering with operating systems. This OS feels like way too many people participated in it. There are too many features. Too many ways to do things. Too much hefty software. Too much irregularity in the design. And too much security. I am rapidly being trained to ignore the constant permission dialogs that pop up every other action. Ok, Windows takes a beating on the security front - but in 20 years of Windows I have not had enough issues to warrant troubling me this much over security. I am so disappointed in Vista! And I can't believe the general public will be able to fathom this thing out.

WOW. While I am waiting for Windows Vista XP1 (it might be safe and usable by then), I will continue with Windows XP and await XP3. How long will I need to wait for Microsoft to treat existing users with a bit of respect?

Grant: "Too many ways to do things" Well said and point taken. Moose: I don't want to be a jerk, but I've been reading and posting on this site for a very long time. If anyone's "coming out of the woodwork" it's you. Just because I switched to a Mac two years ago and have since developed an affinity for OS X does not mean my opinion is any less valid than yours. I spent 20 years on Windows. I've used Vista. I am quite capable of forming an impression and discussing it. Especially in this case since my post had nothing to do with Vista, merely the "wow starts now" slogan. But I appreciate your lack of a response to my actual post and, in lieu of that, a personal attack on me in which you assume I simply "hate Microsoft." Such a response tells me that you will fit in well here.

Also: If anyone here hasn't been by Microsoft.com in the past few days, they've redesigned the site. It looks really good - not perfect - but still way ahead of the old one. And although they now have a news ticker below the main content pane (a la Apple) I think they've done a great job making the entire place look MUCH less busy. It still has a ton of links below the main content panes, but that's not too bad really. And here's the real shocker: Microsoft has even dropped the "TM" and "(R)" junk from a few images and product names! I never thought I'd see the day. God help us. In any case, job well done there. Maybe that design team can come fix this trainwreck of a site next.

@Grantcv1 I am running Vista RTM right now, and I absolutely *love* working with it. Microsoft fixed *so* *many* annoyances and issues with Vista. I am now able to multitask as much as I want without the system slowing down. For instance, last week I (1) converted a video, (2), rendered a finished video, (3) browsed the Internet, (4) played Oblivion, and (5) listened to music at (or nearly) the same time! This is on my 2.1 Ghz single-core Centrino laptop. I kid you not, the only way I know if a process is consuming 100% of the CPU is if I look at the task manager. Once I set up my system, I rarely deal with the UAC prompts. In fact, I haven't seen a single one in the past few days. Yes, there are a few minor inconsistencies. Yes, there are a few minor glitches here and there. With that said, I would *much* rather take my chances with Vista than XP. Do a quick search on wikipedia for "Windows Vista Features" and look at the extensive list. bdk: Install Vista RTM as soon as possible and try it out. You *might* be pleasantly surprised! :-) Merry Christmas, everyone!

"I am now able to multitask as much as I want without the system slowing down." Welcome to my Mac, circa 2001.

""I am now able to multitask as much as I want without the system slowing down." "Welcome to my Mac, circa 2001." That's pretty easy to do when your coding for a closed hardware model.

"I am now able to multitask as much as I want without the system slowing down." Welcome to my PC, circa 1994.

Has anyone checked apple.com? The news ticker that bdk claims inspired MS has more news about Microsoft than about Apple. It even mentions the Zune. Wow, you're right, lotsa, Steve Jobs does need medical help... urgently.

Waethorn: I dunno what PC YOU were using in 1994, but unless you're from another planet you definitely weren't using one that could multitask like OS X or Windows Vista can. Sorry, pal, but I was alive then too and Windows 3.1 didn't "multitask" so much as it "crashed." Shark: Sure, why wouldn't the news ticker mention Zune? It's relevant to Apple and the headline is "Zune doesn't shake iPod's lead." Running articles about the Zune says only one thing about Apple: Microsoft doesn't frighten them. If you think that's good, you should look at the switcher page where Apple talks about MS Office. As for how this constitutes a doctor's appointment for Steve Jobs... I suppose that makes perfect sense in "Windows user logic" ;)

"bdk: obviously Microsoft won't stoop to Apple's level and say something negative about them. and yet, their marketshare has never stooped as low as Apple's either." Waethorn: Actually, you're right. Microsoft tends to say very positive things about Apple. Like Jim Allchin's comment "I'd buy a Mac if I didn't work for Microsoft." ;) And as for MS's marketshare: Incorrect. Microsoft's marketshare has, in fact, been less than Apple's. To say otherwise indicates that you don't have a solid grasp on exactly where the PC came from.

"Running articles about the Zune says only one thing about Apple: Microsoft doesn't frighten them." Yes, only, Microsoft news seems to overshadow news about Apple's own products. Seems like Apple.com is turning into an iSlashdot.com - nice. "As for how this constitutes a doctor's appointment for Steve Jobs..." Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that you were a Mac usr and had to be spoon fed with all minor details. Naah, forget it. Don't worry about things that you don't understand. Merry Christmas to you!

"Incorrect. Microsoft's marketshare has, in fact, been less than Apple's." Ahh. Yes, of course. For a second there, Waethorn forgot that Apple had a 92% share of the computer market. Silly of him.

Alright, here's the definitive example of why Microsoft's marketing sucks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=676q1XjfJzc&search=Apple%20Macworld%20Keynote%20Mac%20Macintosh%20Computer%20St eve%20Jobs%20Bill%20Gates%20OSX%20ipod%20Windows%20imac%20ibook%20power Oh man, that is freaking hilarious. I mean, I know it was the 80's, but still... I can't believe that actually MADE it onto TV.

i know something even more hilarious: http://tinyurl.com/yz5lh6 oh man...i wanna get out the big bottles of hairspray and legwarmers.... i love how people have to crouch really close and lean forward while squinting to see those tiny screens too. 22 years later and they still can't design with ergonomics in mind. actually if you know anything, you'd know that Microsoft releases something called "betas" before the final "RTM" (do you know what that stands for??). in 1994, i was using Windows Codename Chicago. and if you must know, prior to that i was using Windows for Workgroups 3.11 which supported much faster 32-bit file access than the aforementioned Windows 3.1. when Windows 95 was rolling out along with Pentium chips, Apple tried to allow vendors to offer clones, but saw that they were losing too much money. their bottom line was being raped by competitors in their own field, and the popularity was so low that for the number of computers actually sold, they couldn't afford to license out the brand. ya i know some computer history too. if Jobs actually put the same level of effort he puts into his creative processes as he does trying to negate the competition, then Apple might even be able to break the 10% marketshare hurdle. but then again this is the guy Apple fired once already. they keep resting the laurels of their only really successful product - the iPod. they either need to do something drastic, or they should close up shop and just become an MP3 hardware and music store company. and here's something for lotsa to digest: the video was recorded in iMovie. iLife quality at it's finest. /me commenting sarcasticly

@bdk I have done multitasking in both OS's and Vista outperforms OS X by a *wide* margin. Try it yourself. @everyone else: Yes, XP and earlier MS OS's multitasked, but when one app used 100% of the CPU, the whole system slowed to a crawl, unless the priority of the CPU-hogging process was changed. With Vista, I can assign a CPU-hogging task the highest priority and the system *will not slow down.*

"bdk: obviously Microsoft won't stoop to Apple's level and say something negative about them." Really? What about you Waethorn?

The quest for Apple isn't so much as lousy products in favor of higher sales but rather, a concentrated effort toward the high end user level. The image is one of comparing Jaguars to cheap Fords. But the problem lies in that their product quality has dropped a bit in the face of the technology race.....and while Steve Jobs isn't quite as loud as Steve Balmer, he would do well to zip it up so that we can have smirking at Balmer's stupidity. Microsoft however, has fallen prey to paranoia and the same issues that the recording industry seems obsessed with...piracy. In fact, both Microsoft and the recording industry has become so paranoid that their products are suffering. Some would argue that Microsoft has always made lousy products. That's hard to debate but Windows XP (even with all its annoying vulnerabilities) was a huge improvement over the crappy Windows 95/98/ME products. Then again we have the Linux group.....a community of people who believe PCs should be paid for while software should be free to use and free to alter. There is no argument here unless the pipe you've been smoking is releasing a world view of pig headed people. So if that is all one can see....I suggest cleaning your pipe.....or switching to one that actually works.

"And as for MS's marketshare: Incorrect. Microsoft's marketshare has, in fact, been less than Apple's. To say otherwise indicates that you don't have a solid grasp on exactly where the PC came from". Actually, estimates point to a 1% point increase for Apple in 2007....up from about 3 to 4%. A lot of the increase of users lately has been due to the Intel chip, Bootcamp, and a smattering of specialty business people who do not fall prey to the large corporate misgivings of modern business; rather, they favor traditional values and simply believe the Mac to be a better product and part of the atmosphere within the business, as well as the right system for the business itself. Prepare to see many more switching over too. In fact, I personally know of a major business that dumped their Microsoft network in favor of a Linux server distro, 2 Macs (Bootcamp included), and 7 terminals. The savings are remarkable, with less overhead, less heat, and less plastic. Gee, and some employee could be seen in the corner at the Mac playing Morrowind......shouldn't she be paying attention? This is a major medical facility in my area and of which spent thousands upon thousands due to problems with Microsoft Windows. You see, the idea is for the stuff to work once it is deployed. The maintenance of any Windows system to date (including Vista) is remarkably expensive. Now that the facility has switched (actual switch and launch took place 7 months ago), they have saved huge in maintenance and automated tasks. Yes, Vista will dominate the market and eyes that see pigheads will continue to mock those who have eyes that can really see; but it's the nature of a world more interested in material gain rather than personal improvement.

"Really? What about you Waethorn?" Thanks Treeorc! Waethorn: Windows 95 did not multitask well and I'm sorry if you believe otherwise. Prior to XP and OS X, multitasking (and I mean serious multitasking - not playing minesweeper while using word) is just something most PC's didn't do. On modern machines, you can burn a DVD while you compile some code and render a 3D CAD image - all while your machine stays reasonably responsive. THAT'S multitasking. As for Apple "resting on the laurels of their iPod": I think that's just dumb. The company has moved to a completely new chip architecture, is looking at introducing a cellphone, continues to update their computers and the Mac OS... And, they keep updating the iPod line as well. They certainly aren't "resting." As for Steve Jobs and the "creative process:" Perhaps you can get back to me when Bill Gates and company actually innovates something rather than simply entering a market, offering a product that is "good enough" and taking it by force. I think you'll find, Waethorn, that the days of "good enough" are drawing to a close for many people. Not all, certainly, but a large number. I think that frightens you. And, naturally, it should. NateB2: I haven't run any scientific tests on multitask performance, but the type of tasks I'm talking about are compiling and rendering - not using multiple apps at once. But in either case, OS X is no slouch. Still, I'm not qualified to say whether Vista is "better" at it. Do you have numbers to back up your impressions?

Treeorc, Thanks for enlightening me. It's a christmas miracle. I can clearly see now. Software should either be free or developed by Apple. Oh, and yes, several business are replacing PCs with MAcs. All those that aren't are pigheaded. "Perhaps you can get back to me when Bill Gates and company actually innovates something rather than simply entering a market, offering a product that is "good enough" and taking it by force." Oh no! There we go again. Waethorn, I'm glad you're "stooping to Apple's level". Otherwise the comments on this site would be full of pro-Linux, pro-Mac, anti-Microsoft FUD. Merry Christmas to all of you. bdk and treeorc, may your tribe increase. Hopefully, 2007 will also be the year that Steve Jobs gets over his MS obsession. I'll pray for him man... I really will.

"This [2007] summer, Apple and the genius team proudly present iTV ... oops... Redmond, our photocopiers are jammed... can you give us your XBox marketing material? And get rid of the gaming part. We don't need it. Thanks." Two months later, the iPeople will be talking about how innovative iTV is and how Microsoft copied some of their plans and implemented them in the XBox.

Merry Chirstmas fellow flamers!

Did any of you read Paul's latest post in Internet Nexus? How's that for an apology, lotsa? ;)

"bdk..., may your tribe increase" i don't know why you bother, since bdk's comments back are to the commentary, wishing Windows-user genocide and whatnot. "Did any of you read Paul's latest post in Internet Nexus?" i did. i watched the David Letterman YouTube vid. it's funny how stupid Hollywood celebrity-types look when they use Windows 95 dialog boxes and BSOD's as a point of commentary. "Windows XP was a huge improvement over the crappy Windows 95/98/ME products" of course it is - it's newer. it's a different product for a different computing generation. the Windows 9x product line was good for it's time. obviously when Windows Vista is near the end of it's product lifecycle, in reflecting back, the same will be said about it, compared to Windows XP. my point is, each computing generation "gets better", but it's only just a "solution" to that generation's computing desires. "PCs should be paid for while software should be free to use and free to alter" then by that you mean a career in software development is really a waste of time. hmm, maybe they should offer university computer programming courses for free then? and maybe we should be taxed to pay for Linux software developer's salaries? get real! "This is a major medical facility in my area and of which spent thousands upon thousands due to problems with Microsoft Windows" don't get me started on this. i know about the same thing that's happening in our now private health care system where the President of the corporation has her husband doing "IT" for the company - 3 hospitals in the organization. it's a complete nightmare. it's clear to most that poor planning and using untrained or inexperienced professionals is the #1 reason people switch from Windows, citing cost as the culprit. a locked-down, secured networking environment is very easy to maintain on Windows (what with GPO's and Active Directory).

support costs for Linux systems is much more expensive in the long run. Microsoft's Open Value licensing system offers advanced tech support options 24x7 for less than the cost of a second license per machine. and there's also the intellectual property indemnification protection that they provide at any purchase level. Software Assurance can also be added to systems with OEM copies of software included with new PC's. leasing new machines is a cost-effective way of doing it. if a corporation buys systems that include Windows, they can add SA for less than the cost of a copy of Windows, and for a 3 year term, get deployment help, professional tech support, training resources for employees and IT managers, a TechNet Library subscription, home-use licenses of the same software (1:1 licenses for use in employee's homes), plus any and all upgrades available for that product line. at the end of the PC lease term, they can return the machines, start a new lease with new machines, and just renew their SA licensing at a lower cost than the original. i planned a deployment for a company just recently and weighed options for Red Hat Enterprise Linux vs. a Microsoft platform with Windows, Office, and Dynamics CRM vs. a free Linux client/server solution. the company wanted very easy support options for troubleshooting. i weighed the options, and found that the Microsoft option was FAR cheaper than even the free version. they have no IT staff on hand, and hiring a Linux IT Professional would've required getting a guy from nearly 40 miles away and would've cost too much. the cost of vendor support was in the extreme, almost costing as much as the Enterprise Linux solution, whereas the Microsoft solution was almost 1/2 of the price and covered all bases. managed Windows services were also much better (and cheaper) from the Microsoft side of the fence as well. they chose the PC lease option with "OEM" SA added, and were very happy with their lower TCO and higher ROI.

"since bdk's comments back are to the commentary" i meant to say *contrary*....mind was elsewhere at the mo becuz of a family member's passing....

"a locked-down, secured networking environment is very easy to maintain on Windows (what with GPO's and Active Directory)". Yes, quite true....but that wasn't the point. The point in the post was about cost and there is no way to squirm around the fact that there are cheaper ways (and just as if not more secure ways) to go than with Windows. "then by that you mean a career in software development is really a waste of time. hmm, maybe they should offer university computer programming courses for free then? and maybe we should be taxed to pay for Linux software developer's salaries? get real"! Again, you have missed the point.....seeing pigheads again? Think about what you are really saying here..... "of course it is - it's newer. it's a different product for a different computing generation. the Windows 9x product line was good for it's time. obviously when Windows Vista is near the end of it's product lifecycle, in reflecting back, the same will be said about it, compared to Windows XP. my point is, each computing generation "gets better", but it's only just a "solution" to that generation's computing desires". Your joking? Hey, I would swear by Windows at one time and used the 9X product lines extensively. At least I can admit now at how craopy they were and how at that time, Apple was way ahead of Microsoft. Somewhere in there though, Microsoft caught up and now both Apple and Microsoft make suspect systems. But if I had to choose between the two.... in a heartbeat I'd go with Apple due to what I have invested at this very moment; not because one is better than the other. Fortunately, I don't have to choose between these two overblown and bloated systems.

"support costs for Linux systems is much more expensive in the long run". Really? How would you know? According to whom? Would that not depend on the support company? Are you telling me it is more expensive for me to administer a Linux network than a Windows network? If you are then you really do have something clogging up your pipe. I can tell you from first hand and hands on that you are flat out wrong in my case. Not only is setup cheaper but so is maintenance and automation among the few. "Thanks for enlightening me. It's a christmas miracle. I can clearly see now. Software should either be free or developed by Apple. Oh, and yes, several business are replacing PCs with MAcs. All those that aren't are pigheaded". shark: You are welcome...

"there are cheaper ways (and just as if not more secure ways) to go than with Windows" as an IT professional and business technology planner for several companies, I have to look at the whole picture. there are several things associated with a large-scale deployment I have to include in my proposal of which only a handful are: licensing, support, deployment, downtime, compatibility, integration, simplicity, and of course TCO and ROI (if you don't know what those are, you shouldn't be running a business). in the 10+ business proposals i've made in the last couple of years, every single client found that the Microsoft solution was the cheapest when it came to quality of service. even those that thought that a free Linux was the cheapest answer were hard up to find anybody local enough AND certified that wouldn't charge less than $100/hr for services. i laugh at that. and then of course there was the compatibility issues and headaches. one client I had actually came to me because their Enterprise Linux systems were buggier and there were gaping security holes on their server that weren't automatically patched. their initial investment was about 3x that of a typical Microsoft investment for a company of that size, and they didn't have a support contract in their investment. seemed to me that they hired an IT company focused on "business solutions" with a similar image as IBM, but had employees with no real certifications. at the time they started with them, which was less than 3 years ago, they were the only Linux-associated IT company anywhere close to here. I remember reading the ratio of certified Windows to Linux IT pro's was some ungawdly number like 400:1, but I don't recall where I read that since it was nearly a year ago. FF a year later after a Windows deployment, I only had to go onsite once (to install an extra server hard drive, tape backup, and security camera), but i'm still on my managed services contract, so all my work is done remotely.

one thing I wanted to point out: the company that made the Linux switch to Windows was also using a hack-job installation of Blackberry Enterprise Server on a Linux Server. has anybody dealt with this crap?? i mean, g0d, what a stinker. i found Windows Mobile to be a cheaper solution since a company already using Exchange as their email server doesn't have to do a thing to set-up Windows Mobile devices. all the user has to do is sync the device, and they're configured and ready to go! simple, and doesn't require an extra software investment - that's a much smarter design over what Blackberry offers. and the company in question is switching to Windows Mobile when their lease expires on their current hardware.

" becuz of a family member's passing...." So sorry to hear that! Christmas was sad this year for our family as well b/c two family members were missing: My grandpa and my younger cousin (He was lost at Crater Lake this October and never found - you may have heard about it on the news). :-( Such is life...

as an IT professional and business technology planner for several companies, I have to look at the whole picture. there are several things associated with a large-scale deployment I have to include in my proposal of which only a handful are: licensing, support, deployment, downtime, compatibility, integration, simplicity, and of course TCO and ROI (if you don't know what those are, you shouldn't be running a business). Awesome....good luck to you....it's obvious you have a handle on your work....but I still disagree with your general assessment of operating systems.

one thing I wanted to point out: the company that made the Linux switch to Windows was also using a hack-job installation of Blackberry Enterprise Server on a Linux Server. has anybody dealt with this crap?? More details would be of help here but generally, I would never offer up a solution to any business in and of what you describe here...at least on the surface. I've entered into some pretty ugly environments and among them Linux and Windows or both deployed.......but again, when we debate cost, I have yet to find any situation that couldn't be done cheaper with Linux as the OS. There simply is no debate there. From hardware to software to the core of systems, Linux is the foremost cost saver. How can Microsoft change this? I think they might and my guess is they are already heading in that direction. Where are they headed? Here's a clue....Vista will be the last operating system of its kind. Bank on it......their biggest competitor won't be from Linux either......its those Google eyes.........Apple? They may get laid to waste fiddling around with iStuff.....

just a few of points for all those people out there, who are sad enough to be obsessed with mac: mac are as thieving as ms: osx stole windows instant search of vista betas, stole the idea of widgets from konfabulator (now yahoo! widget engine), time machine from window's system restore, etc. the list just goes on. osx leopard has only two good new features: spaces (novell linux already has that (xgl environment) and it's much better than this (search google video for 'Linux 3D desktop xgl')) and time machine (with its nice (but over the top) core animation). vista's avalon gpu animations technology is great; it's much better than mac's technology. mac's security is only good because there are hardly any viruses for macs and they are also very rare. mac also copied the idea off ie7, to ask before downloading any files. for that idiot, who said that vista would be backwards compatible with viruses after 2004 is wrong. all downloads need to have permission before being copied and the os closes all loopholes with its uac, firewall and ie7 security features. ms actually got 10 of the world's best hackers and virus creators to break into vista pcs remotely, and all of their attempts failed. oh, and vista blocks programs changing code in dlls and registries, so there are no loopholes and so that newly installed programs don't make the system unstable. another reason i like pcs - compatability another reason i like vista - ease of use (i just couldn't find the programs i need the first time i used a mac, but i did get to know some eventually (i'm an extremely fast learner (i use the no-reading-the-instuction-manual hands-on approach)). within 2 days of using vista, i was very comfortable indeed. within two days' worth of use (split into half an hour's playing about), i still has some problems with a mac, and trust me here, there are alot of differences between using vista and xp.

I have to agree that Vista is a big improvement in many areas....as for stealing ideas, I think Linux, Apple, and Microsoft all enjoy that luxury. While I have switched to Linux there still is no denying that Windows is the easiest to work with of the three. Initially I had no plans to upgrade to Vista on my Media Center, but since a friend handed me an XBOX 360 Live with all the trimmings, I may change my mind. Other than that, I am enjoying Linux immensely...As for Apple, it just isn't my cup of tea....

treeorc, a couple things: Blackberry Enterprise Server was deployed on the system before i got there. it's a mess. i mean it costs over and above what Exchange Server does and yet it's a pig when it comes to ease of setup and integration. literally mind-boggling. Windows Mobile integration is a complete no-brainer in the simplification area. Exchange already "supports" it, in that devices will recognize and configure themselves automatically when connected to a Windows Server Active Directory domain environment running Exchange for communications. even Windows Small Business Server is a *snap* to set up. you should really look at SBS and it's simple integration as a single-server environment that includes ISA, SQL, WSS, WSUS, (abbrevs to follow) and Exchange with Windows Server 2003. it's a thing of beauty, and it costs less than a single license of Windows Server 2003 Standard. there is one small limitation, but it has to do with the target market for SBS - small businesses. that limitation is that it only supports a maximum of 75 domain client connections. hardly a limit for most small businesses though. businesses running 50 or more would want to divide server computing resources into multiple machines anyway and the standard Windows Server 2003 setup approach is more in tune with componentizing server computing on multiple systems. Windows Small Business Server also differs from Windows Server in that most of the setup is done via wizards, rather than through the management consoles. otherwise, it's not much different. i usually get first-time server owners to start with SBS and then upgrade to Windows Server via a same-priced upgrade program which removes the restrictions. they get to keep the wizards that way. "As for Apple, it just isn't my cup of tea...." i thought you said you would rather go with Apple, because of your "current investments", whatever that means.... the Z: "that idiot" is bonch.

**those abbrev's are: WSS: Windows SharePoint Services - team collaboration and intranet software services. Microsoft would not call it a "file repository" as it functions as much more than that, but it does have that capability. WSUS: Windows Software Update Services - corporate automatic updates that the server deploys (even to non-internet-connected/authorized clients). the updates are normally stored on the server to avoid multiple downloads. now included in Windows Small Business Server 2003 *R2*. available as a free, separate download otherwise though. ISA: Internet Security and Acceleration Server - in-depth firewall and routing software with caching proxy. SBS Standard has a simple port-based firewall, but is not as complex and isn't integrated into Active Directory. an SBS Premium feature. SQL: Microsoft SQL Server - Microsoft's version of an SQL (structured query language) database server. you all should know what it is. an SBS Premium feature. available free as Microsoft SQL Server Express, but doesn't offer all of the same features. Exchange, WSS, WSUS are in both versions of SBS. oh and one other thing: "Vista will be the last operating system of its kind" you should read this: http://tinyurl.com/yzfekw i'd even like to correct an incorrect point even made in his story - modular Windows didn't start with Windows Server 2003, it started with Windows XP Embedded. i also made the comment on their site. Joe Wilcox writes some pretty good articles otherwise though.

"As for Apple, it just isn't my cup of tea...." i thought you said you would rather go with Apple, because of your "current investments", whatever that means.... Yes you are right and I stuck some gunk in my mouth with that......what I meant to say is that I would "prefer" to go with Apple but in view of a long term investment over the years in Microsoft...it probably wouldn't be my cup of tea to go with Apple. and.....with an XBOX gift it would seem wise to upgrade my Media Center to Vista or at least stick with XP Media Center Edition 2005 for media streaming throughout my home...and while I prefer Linux, I am not so daft as to ignore the fact that there are advantages to Windows. In a perfect world, I'd use Windows for audio, Os X for video, and Linux for just about everything else.

I have a tech friend who uses SBS and has actually provided me with his whole setup specs. It's pretty sweet and suits what he does nicely.

"Os X for video"? you should read my comments about Sony Vegas in the other thread. it's a much better program than Final Cut Pro. there's also a slimmed-down version called "Sony Vegas Movie Studio" that has more features than Final Cut Express HD. you can grab a 30-day trial of either from www.sonymediasoftware.com don't forget DVD Architect (or Architect Studio with Vegas Movie Studio) the network rendering in the full Vegas is pretty sweet too.

I thought Wow was Blizzard's and it started back in 2004...! Sorry, couldn't hold myself... Microsoft should've thought of a better slogan. :)

Agreed on Vegas....it is sweet. I use it along with Acid Pro 6, Steinberg Cubase SX, and Cakewalk for both audio and mixing video. Steinberg Nuendo is another application I use depending on what I am trying to do. Microsoft has indeed made it so that they are competing well in the video area. By the way, I set up a new Dell this morning starting at 6 AM and didn't get finished until 11 AM. This was because I installed Office 2002 which then needed to be patched as well as the updates that I needed to get after turning the thing on. I have fast DSL too, so it wasn't a case of the slows due to dial up. Granted, part of the time (about an hour) was spent cleaning, defragging, and uninstalling unnecessary software. Does this happen with a new Apple machine? I ask because all I have is my old eMac. It sure doesn't happen with linux. The last distro I installed only needed about 20 minutes of updates. Hopefully Vista will fix this and hopefully it won't turn into another OS that offers up a steady batch of critical patches every other Tuesday.

Recently during my tests with Windows Vista I discovered that the sound seemed a bit off. I had managed to a recording Application and while it worked; both Voice and Music seemed less than adequate. I figured it was simply because the actual application was meant for XP. But I ran across this article and wonder if any of you care to comment: http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsid=7675&pagtype=all

and check this out also: http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/4232

that sounds suspiciously slow.... recently i reformatted an OEM brand name system (i think it was an eMachines, but i forget), that only came with XP RTM. it only took about 45 minutes for all the updates and the few reboots. i did the initial Windows Installer mandatory updates first. there's 3 of them and consist of only a few hundred kilobytes. then i did SP2, then IE7, WMP11, and finally the rest of the updates, including ALL optional updates and WHQL drivers on Microsoft Update. i ALWAYS switch to Microsoft Update the first time i launch the Windows Update page. they also included a copy of Works Suite 2003 which included Word 2002, so i also got the service packs for Word via Microsoft Update included with all the other critical and optional updates that Windows would normally have. most OEM's don't include any post-SP fixes with their builds, and with SP2 being pretty old now, there are several fixes to be done. my advice is to get IE7 FIRST before continuing with post-SP2 fixes since many of the bug fixes are integrated into IE7 and don't require double downloads. getting WMP11 early will also prevent additional hotfix downloads that WMP10 requires. btw treeorc: you can get a fairly long-lasting trial of Office 2007 now from the Office website, and there are no hotfixes for it yet.

@treeorc I am currently running a 5.1 surround system off my Creative Audigy 2ZS Notebook adapter on Vista, and it works almost perfectly. (The driver is a bit buggy when changing certain options) I'm guessing the sound on your computer is low quality b/c the manufacturer needs to write better drivers. Vista's audio stack is *completely* redone. It contains some *very* sophisticated sound technologies that were previously done only on high-end sound cards. However, the manufacturers need to write drivers to take advantage of the improved audio stack. I *highly* doubt MS would shoot themselves in the foot by providing low-quality sound to those of us who don't have a certain DRM technology on their sound card. Right now, I have Christmas music playing over my sound system, and have muted the Windows system sounds, Internet Explorer, and any other programs' sounds. Another one of Vista's many conveniences... Another related note: The Windows startup sound is smooth and relatively quiet, even at full volume. This is great when I start up my laptop in a quiet room, b/c the speakers don't blast sound and cause my laptop to be the object of attention. --------------------------------- Unrelated side fact for bonch: Vista contains an estimated 50 million lines of code. OS X contains...................................86 million lines of code. So, please don't use that argument any more. If Vista has bugs in its 50 million lines of code, OS X must have *tons* of bugs.

actually, the sound on my computer is superior once I went back to XP and I run both a Motu 16 channel card and a Creative Audigy with 5.1 surround. However, XP doesn't handle latency well when the CPU is under heavy usage and MIDI timing can be off also... (Granted, a lot of this can depend on the card and/or software....example: Sonar Cakewalk seems to handle Latency better then Cubase sX)... and Vista seems even worse in these areas but then that should probably be expected until software makers get caught up. Also, I hope you are right about Microsoft and DRM....frankly, I have my doubts....

i think what you guys are getting at is that hardware manufacturers are not writing Vista ASIO drivers yet. sidenote: many high-quality digital audio formats (DVD-Audio, WMA w/ DRM, etc.) are not allowed to play out a digital connection ie. SPDIF. this is not Microsoft's fault, nor is it the fault of the hardware manufacturer - it was a requirement by the music industry, DMCA, and Sony/Philips when most of the formats were made, for fear that an exact copy of the content could be made just by "recording" from a digital connection. Microsoft is continually trying to work this out with the above mentioned organizations so that users can enjoy DRM-enabled music on various digital devices. so far, the only way to enjoy multichannel audio with DRM is to use analog ports, but for most that have a high-end Sound Blaster card, such as an Audigy 1/2 or the AWESOME X-Fi, the analog ports offer a nearly crystal-clear audio fidelity because of Creative's low noise and distortion levels. Creative also sells the Home Theater Connect DTS-610 that solves the problem of not being able to hook up to a home theater receiver. with the quality of PC surround speakers and the availability of affordable analog THX-certified speaker solutions, when coupled with a Sound Blaster X-Fi (or Audigy), there is hardly a need to use a dedicated home theater receiver anymore.

Yes, the ASIO drivers would probably help but I am not so sure about DRM and DCMA getting laid on the film industry and music industry alone over the long term. Both Apple and Microsoft don't seem to complain much and both seem just as paranoid about the consumer as the film and music industries, Of the two, Microsoft has probably made more of an effort to make ease of use a factor for the consumer. I only say probably because there are those Apple users that would argue this from their own perspective. Believe, I understand that any company would want to protect their interests. But the creeping sense that the general public is criminal is rendering usage of Apple and Microsoft products tedious at best.

SPDIF. this is not Microsoft's fault... Are you sure? The reason for the SPDIF problem would actually seem to be that it doesn't use copy protection and thus, Vista renders it dead in the water when trying to play protected content. I find that a bit suspect. Also, that Vista degrades sound depending on the content is also curious. Video is also a problem and the content problems described here and with Vista are just the tip of the iceberg. Pawning the problem off on the vendor is nothing more than a typical out for Microsoft.

"Pawning the problem off on the vendor is nothing more than a typical out for Microsoft." Not really. Our Apple friends here are quick to pawn Mac problems off on third party vendors. All in all, the company that codes the OS itself (MS, Apple, Sun, etc) is not 100% responsible for what third party vendors do with their hard/software.

Pawning the problem off on the vendor is nothing more than a typical out for Microsoft. My Comment Above: While a bit harsh, you have to wonder what the true intent is behind the scenes because for audio and video production this whole paranoid copy protection idea is becoming extremely annoying and it is actually non productive for all parties concerned....Microsoft, Apple, the music industry, Hollywood, and so on. Clearly, the corporate world is becoming more and more detached from the consumer world. But of all the companies involved, Microsoft has been the one that really seemed to want to make life easy for its customers. For some strange reason, that vision is becoming severely suspect.

Not really. Our Apple friends here are quick to pawn Mac problems off on third party vendors. Agreed and that's part of the point I have made...Microsoft, Apple, etcetera and along with the music and movie industries are forcing vendors to comply with their paranoia.

you have to understand everybody's stance on the subject though. the DMCA mandates that a content creator can protect their digital creation by disallowing digital duplicates. Microsoft and Apple have two different ways of implementing a solution: Apple doesn't license out FairPlay to 3rd-parties, so they themselves can stream DRM audio or protected video via a digital connection on their own hardware, but 3rd-parties, including partners, can't. Microsoft doesn't make hardware, so their implementation (for better, or worse) is to restrict DRM output to analog connections only. obviously, as you know, DVI was around before serious video DRM came into play, so it's a bit of an exception. that will change soon though, with the advent of HDMI & HDCP. both solutions are acceptable under the DMCA, but obviously it begs the question as to whether or not the abbreviation DRM should stand for "Digital Rights Management", or "Digital Restriction Management"

"On modern machines, you can burn a DVD while you compile some code and render a 3D CAD image - all while your machine stays reasonably responsive. THAT'S multitasking." Actually that has no creedence to the OS, simply to the processing resources of the device. Current CPUs can handle both operations simultaneously without allocating 100% resources, therefore running windows 3.11 while doing both operations (assuming drivers are available) would give the same stability. Windows 3.11 kernel had a problem with on-demand performance, essentially they didn't give kernel level code a 'super-priority' to overtake tasks that demanded 100% CPU resources for more than their given temporal slice by the task scheduler. This caused instability primarily in the form of scheduling, as the scheduler became out of sync. I'm not quite sure you understand how multitasking at a kernel level operates in terms of scheduling, but I can assure you that the OSX model (exact same code from FreeBSD mind you, process scheduler) is not much more superior (if at all) than the NT scheduler. It simply is hardened against things that demand 100% for more than their slice, gives premption to the executing kernel code, and can override even the highest priority user code. Thats it. Nothing special. How Vista maintains responsiveness even when it says CPU = 100% is, well, odd. In strict theory, it cannot, afterall 100% of its 'thought' capability is tapped out. I can tell you, in OSX and in Linux, you will lag horribly if you have 100% CPU. My guess is that possibly their premption model doesn't allow certain sections of kernel code related to contextual operation ever leave anything above L2 cache; however this may hurt other application performance, so I wouldn't suggest it as a good idea. Maybe the OS is really just 'smart'. It can tell when to context switch. I don't know. But what I do know is that OSX isn't special in terms of multitasking. Context switching is expensive, lag.

I understand that and I understand DMCA. Or do I understand it? In other words, can Apple, Microsoft, etcetera....get in trouble if they use a different solution, one that generally skirts the issues of DMCA?

"so far, the only way to enjoy multichannel audio with DRM is to use analog ports, but for most that have a high-end Sound Blaster card, such as an Audigy 1/2 or the AWESOME X-Fi, the analog ports offer a nearly crystal-clear audio fidelity because of Creative's low noise and distortion levels. " Yes, that's assuming you use 'computer speakers' you know, those speakers that have little 1/8" jacks or RCA connections built into them. Which you couldn't really tell the difference between 'ok' and 'good' anyway. I use Yamaha NS-555 with my computer, terminations aside, I sincerely doubt an X-Fi card has acceptable amplfication to operate them. Currently I use a motherboard that has optical out, and just run it to an outside amplifer, that way I only need one speaker setup for PC/TV/SACD etc. Disabling my digital-out is unacceptable, yet another reason for the abolition of DRM.

"Or do I understand it? In other words, can Apple, Microsoft, etcetera....get in trouble if they use a different solution, one that generally skirts the issues of DMCA?" That's where the issue arises. Yes, something 'bad' happens when you walk the line of legality on DMCA and DRM laws... but as for what that 'is' well its left up to the controlling party that you've harmed. Personally, I have no clue what they do. All I know is that being at university, I've had a few corrispondence with people who, for pure academic purposes, have fiddled with the innards of HDCP and the like, and then one day their work just stops and they drop the topic altogether. I think the whole industry of DRM is just strongarming, if a firm 'stood up' against it, they would get a 'we're going to sue you into oblivion you evil pirate-aiding blankity blank', 'this is what you do to us after we helped you??', 'that's it, now we'll see how you do (ipod, zune, MCE, iTV, xbox) when you have no media to sell!', etc. etc. Nothing ever really happens, its just like MAD for the digital era. If you screw us, we'll screw you back.

Will84, I think you have come very close to nailing the DRM issues. We can all try and place the fault on something or someone else but DRM is what it is....and in extreme environments, it can even be the catalyst for invasion of privacies. But generally yes, it is strongarming.....without a doubt. Also concerning: I'm not quite sure you understand how multitasking at a kernel level operates in terms of scheduling, but I can assure you that the OSX model (exact same code from FreeBSD mind you, process scheduler) is not much more superior (if at all) than the NT scheduler. It simply is hardened against things that demand 100% for more than their slice, gives premption to the executing kernel code, and can override even the highest priority user code. Thats it. Nothing special. Thank you, could not have been stated more clearly....

Microsoft doesn't make hardware, so their implementation (for better, or worse) is to restrict DRM output to analog connections only. obviously, as you know, DVI was around before serious video DRM came into play, so it's a bit of an exception. that will change soon though, with the advent of HDMI & HDCP. Sooooo.....since they do not make hardware their implementation of strong arming is ok?

who's strongarming who? the DMCA is acting as a watchdog for the media industries! we can all criticize and whatnot, but the industry wants media protected from casual copying and they'll get what they want in the end. do you have any better solutions? funny, but i haven't seen any new content protection schemes patented recently that are a threat to DRM systems.

we can all criticize and whatnot, but the industry wants media protected from casual copying and they'll get what they want in the end. Your attitude here is why you might be right which is too bad.....so you are the type that just gives in to intrusion and poor treatment from the companies you purchase products from? Do I have a better solution? What a silly question...especially when you consider that these types of corporate engines for greed can be stopped by a non-ignorant consumer environment...but take your attitude and turn a blind eye because it doesn't matter to you...be my guest...or does it matter to you? and what about casual copying?......it has been going on for years and you can laugh and smirk all you want but copying is part of what spurs sales Waethorn......ask Tom Petty and a few other Multi-Billion dollar artists that see this kind of intusive distrust of the consumer as a threat to their well being......

we can all criticize and whatnot, but the industry wants media protected from casual copying and they'll get what they want in the end. Your attitude here is why you might be right which is too bad.....so you are the type that just gives in to intrusion and poor treatment from the companies you purchase products from? Do I have a better solution? What a silly question...especially when you consider that these types of corporate engines for greed can be stopped by a non-ignorant consumer environment...but take your attitude and turn a blind eye because it doesn't matter to you...be my guest...or does it matter to you? and what about casual copying?......it has been going on for years and you can laugh and smirk all you want but copying is part of what spurs sales Waethorn......ask Tom Petty and a few other Multi-Billion dollar artists that see this kind of intusive distrust of the consumer as a threat to their well being......

yikes....sorry about that...a double dose of my spit and drivel......whew.....must have punched the shooter twice....

will: one of the things about a Sound Blaster card is that it doesn't have a Dolby Digital encoder onboard, so surround sound audio in games using EAX Advanced HD will only work via analog output. digital output will only play in Stereo PCM. Creative won't pay the overpriced licensing fees to add in Dolby Digital, and yet motherboards (even if they have Dolby Digital Live support) don't support EAX Advanced HD because Creative isn't licensing it out. so in fact, when you have a high end Sound Blaster and intend to have the best PC surround sound audio, it's best to use a high-quality set of analog speakers. i suggest speakers with THX, since they pair nicely with the X-Fi's THX capability. both Logitech and Creative (Cambridge Soundworks under the Creative name) make amazing THX speakers that are almost perfectly tuned for these cards. they also work well for the older Audigy cards too. i think the best match are Creative's THX 7.1 set, but they're hard to come by now. the Klipsch ones suck.

oh and will, digital out is not the only way to get sound to a receiver. many receivers have analog line-in rca jacks per stereo pair or individual mono equivalents. sure it takes extra cables, but all that EAX Advanced HD goodness, let alone the 24-bit Crystalizer, can be enjoyed on those massive floor speaker setups with a home receiver.

"these types of corporate engines for greed can be stopped by a non-ignorant consumer environment" ignorance is in the eye of the beholder. you don't have a better solution but you want your content. so you'll go ahead and buy it and put up with whatever they give you. otherwise you don't buy and then protest. you're given a choice, either buy or don't buy, but don't complain about the options, since you can't provide an alternative. that's ignorance. it's like people that don't vote that argue that neither candidate is worthy of their vote. that's not so bad, but the ignorant part is that they themselves won't run for office!

lol............well at least I had the where-with-all to vote for my Dad.....

"we can all criticize and whatnot, but the industry wants media protected from casual copying and they'll get what they want in the end. do you have any better solutions? funny, but i haven't seen any new content protection schemes patented recently that are a threat to DRM systems." Well, we don't have a perfect way to prevent murders, but we don't lock up people just because they have the capability to harm others. By turning off my optical-out b/c it _possibly_ could be used as piracy, is essentially the same thing.

you take the good with the bad.... sure you can lock your front door so that burglars can't come in, but you have to unlock it for your neighbours. so what happens if you can't trust either? best to err on the side of caution right?

woohoo! 9 pages!!

best to err on the side of caution right? agreed, provided it isn't an excuse for ignorance...

yes, but inability and unwillingness are two different things.